Chapter I: Early Forests

“A forest,” according to the last edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, “is a tract of country covered with trees, of one or several species, or with trees and underwood.” This has become the popularly accepted meaning of the term for several generations, but it is historically false; and so far as this volume is concerned, we have to go back to Manwood’s definition as expressed in his _Lawes of the Forest_ (1598), wherein he describes a forest as “a certen territorie of wooddy grounds and fruitfull pastures, priviledged for wild beasts and foules of forrest, chase, and warren, to rest and abide in, in the safe protection of the king, for his princely delight and pleasure.”

But even Manwood, and others who have followed him, are not correct in assuming that the term originally, or of necessity, implied woody grounds or natural woodland. Dr. Wedgwood seems to be right in considering “forest” as a modified form of the Welsh _gores_, _gorest_, waste, waste ground; whence the English word _gorse_, furze, the growth of waste land. Others consider its derivation to be from the Latin _foris_, out of doors, the unenclosed open land. From the fact that so many wastes were covered with wood or undergrowth, it gradually came about that the term “forest” was applied to a great wood.

Perhaps the following definition is as accurate a one as can be given in a few words, of what used to be understood by the English term “forest” in Norman, Plantagenet, and early Tudor days. A forest was a portion of territory consisting of extensive waste lands, and including a certain amount of both woodland and pasture, circumscribed by defined metes and bounds, within which the right of hunting was reserved exclusively to the king, and which was subject to a special code of laws administered by local as well as central ministers.

Had the true meaning of the old term “forest” been grasped, much waste of learning, and of vain strivings to prove that such barren tracts as by far the greater part of the forests of Dartmoor, of Exmoor, and of the High Peak, or even of the larger portion of the New Forest were wood-covered in historic times, might have been spared.

A chase was, like a forest, unenclosed and only defined by metes and bounds, but could be held by a subject. Offences committed therein were, as a rule, punishable by the Common Law and not by forest jurisdiction, though swainmotes were sometimes held therein, proving that they had originally been royal forests. The terms “chase” and “forest” were occasionally used interchangeably, owing to a chase having been secured by the Crown, or the Crown having granted a royal forest to a subject.

A park was an enclosure, fenced off by pales or a wall. In certain forests there were various parks, as in Duffield Frith, and Needwood, and Sherwood; and in most, at least one or two; but many parks were held throughout the country by subjects under Crown licence, altogether apart from forests. Forest law prevailed in parks within a forest, but not in those outside such limits. An Elizabethan estimate, of doubtful value, states that the old royal forests were sixty-nine in number, and that there were in addition thirteen chases and more than seven hundred parks.

The term “warren” also requires brief discussion. The public had a right to hunt wild animals in any unenclosed land outside forest limits, unless such right had been restricted by some special royal grant. The word “warren”—the subject is ably treated by Mr. Turner (_Forest Pleas_, cxxiii.-cxxxiv.)—was used to denote either the exclusive right of hunting and taking certain beasts (_feræ naturæ_) in a particular place, or the land over which such right existed. Grants of free-warren over demesne lands outside forests, so frequently made by our earlier kings both to religious foundations and to private individuals, prevented anyone entering on such lands to hunt or to take anything belonging to the warren without the owner’s licence, under the great penalty of £10. No one might, therefore, follow the hunt of a hare or of a fox or other vermin into warrenable land; but following the hunt of deer into such land was held to be no trespass, as deer were not beasts of the warren. Lords of warrens had the power of impounding the greyhounds or other dogs, and the nets and snares of trespassers.

In the consideration of England’s old forests, it is well to remember that subjects from time to time, in different shires, were seized of lands within forest bounds; but, when that was the case, they were not allowed on such lands the right of hunting, or of cutting trees, or of high fence making, or of doing anything which could be interpreted as detrimental to the deer, save by special grant from the Crown.

It has been pointed out by Mr. Turner that the history of English forests divides itself into three periods, namely, from the earliest times up to 1217, when the Charter of the Forest of Henry III. was granted; from that date up to 1301, when large tracts were disafforested by Edward I.; and thirdly, from 1301 up to the present day.

As to the story of the forests in the first of these periods, it must largely partake of the nature of conjecture based upon subsequent knowledge.

As the Romans gradually made themselves masters of England, they must have destroyed much of the vast extent of woods that gave shelter to the British tribes. This work of destruction—begun in the later prehistoric stage—was accelerated by two other causes, apart from military reasons; wooded districts were cleared in order to use the richer tracts for tillage and pasturage; whilst the greater attention paid to iron and lead smelting led to a steady diminution in timber through the demands for fuel.

The Saxons made further development of iron smelting works. This gradual clearance of the natural woods, coupled with enclosures of land round homesteads and settlements, drove back the deer and other game into the depths of the woods and the more desolate districts.

These wilder tracts were used as common hunting grounds; but in course of time the chieftains and more powerful local men usurped the rights hitherto exercised by all. Eventually, as the Saxon overlords or kings gained greater power, they claimed, as part of their royal prerogative, the right to reserve the chase, or at all events the higher chase of the deer, in selected areas chosen for their nearness to favourite residences, or for the exceptional predominance of game. The royal hunting grounds (_silva regis_) as well as the king’s lands or royal demesnes (_terra regis_) were gradually formed out of the original folkland held by the common people under their thegn; so that when Egbert, in the ninth century, became the first king of all England, he found himself possessed of many royal hunting grounds in most parts of his kingdom.

During the later Saxon and Danish period the chase became more and more restricted. The freeholder still had the right to kill the big game on his own land, but might not follow it into or upon the king’s woods. The lesser game could, however, be then followed even in the king’s woods by the holder of the land, up to the time of the Conquest.

In this, as in so many other respects, the mention of forests or woods in Domesday Survey is merely incidental. The name of swainmote, as applied to a minor forest court of local administration, which so long survived and was of such general use, is in itself sufficient to establish the fact that there was a pre-Norman customary forest law. The question as to the first introduction of a body of written forest law in this country depends largely upon the genuineness of the code usually attributed to Canute, and termed _Constitutiones de Foresta_. This Latin code, in thirty-four brief chapters, purports to have been drawn up by Canute both for the English and the Danes. Although its authenticity was long ago doubted by Coke, it has been quoted by many able writers, such as Palgrave and Kemble, without the expression of any doubt as to it being a genuine historic document; but Professor Freeman and Bishop Stubbs subsequently adduced such weighty reasons for considering this code a forgery, or at all events containing so many interpolations as to be valueless, that present-day scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting it. The best defence of it is to be found in Mr. Fisher’s _Forest of Essex_. On the whole, it seems probable that this Latin code has a certain value in showing the general drift and tendency of Anglo-Danish forest law; but that its worth has been vitiated by being dressed up at the hands of some Norman scribe, with the object of lessening the hostility to the severity of the forest laws introduced by the Conqueror.

THE KING HUNTING (1) (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]

The Conqueror acquired, by right of conquest, not only the demesne lands of the Confessor and of the nobles who had opposed him, but also all the rights of the chase over great woodland or open stretches of both cultivated and uncultivated ground, where royal hunting rights had previously been exercised by Saxon or Danish kings. With William and his immediate successors the chase was a passion, and hence a code of singularly harsh and burdensome “forest” laws soon came into operation. The Conqueror took advantage of the autocratic position secured to him and his followers by their military success, to carry out “afforestation” not only over the restricted areas that had been the hunting grounds of his predecessors on the throne, but over almost all the old folkland that remained unenclosed. The term “forest,” that had been long in like use on parts of the Continent, was then introduced into England, and made to embrace vast districts, which included woodlands and wild wastes of moor, as well as patches of cultivated land. Within these afforested tracts, he decreed that the right of hunting was vested solely in the Crown, and could only be exercised by the king, or by those who were specially privileged under royal licence to share in it. The feudal idea about all wild animals, however monstrous and harsh in operation, possessed a rough logical basis. It was argued that all such animals were _bona vacantia_, or ownerless property, and hence pertained to the king; that hunting was essentially the pastime or “game” of kings; and that therefore the right of exercising the chase, or taking all kinds of beasts of venery, belonged solely to the king.

The subsequent Norman kings added more or less largely to the “forest” districts of England, making even whole counties subject to this exceptional jurisdiction—as, for instance, Essex and Surrey. The complaints of the hardships caused by this autocratic proceeding gradually gained strength. Certain disafforestations were made even by Henry II.; but in 1215 John was compelled to agree, by one of the articles of Magna Charta, to the disafforesting of all the great tracts of country which had been made forest during his own reign.

Soon after this, in 1217, the child-king Henry was made to issue the Charter of the Forest, in consideration of a grant of one-fifteenth of all movables of the whole kingdom. By this instrument it was provided that all forests, which Henry II. had afforested, should be viewed by good and lawful men; and that all that had been made forest, other than his own royal demesne, was forthwith to be disafforested.

In accordance with this charter special perambulations were ordered to be made before March, 1224-5, by twelve knights elected for the purpose.

There is much confusion among both national and local historians as to the number and extent of England’s forests at this period; and certain of our State documents appear to be somewhat contradictory. Fortunately, however, a great gale, that affected almost the whole of England towards the close of the year 1222, was the incidental cause of furnishing the longest extant list, of an early date, of England’s royal forests. The windfall was so considerable, that Henry III. issued orders to the forest officials not to interfere with any of the prostrate trees or broken branches until further orders, and at once to proceed to draw up a careful valuation of their worth. Letters to this effect were despatched to—

_Viridariis et forestariis de feodo de foresta_ de Dene, Nova Foresta, Brikestok, Braden, Rokingham, Lye, Brehull (Bucks), Galteriz, Windlesore, inter Usam et Derewentem, Huntindonie, Shirewud, Rotelande, Clive (Northants), Brunningemor (Berks), Cumberland, Penber (Hants), comitatus Leicestrie, Clay (Salop), Lya (Salop), Melkesham and Chipeham, Cet, Savernac (Wilts), Northumberland, Lancastria, Salopa, Kenefer, Canoc, Alrewas, Hopwas, Kenillewurth (_haia et parco_), Selewud, Nerechirch (Somerset), Graveling, Gillingeham, Pikering, Porcestre, Essexie, Wichewud, Axisholt, Notingham, and Periton (_parco_).

At the same time, like injunctions were forwarded to the keepers of each of these forests. On 30th January, 1223, the king instructed the sheriffs of all the counties containing forests to place the money accruing from the sale of the windfall in some religious house within their jurisdiction, there to await further orders, and to place with it a roll giving full particulars of the sales, drawn up by a specially appointed clerk named in the letters patent.

The heading to these instructions on the Patent and Close Rolls of Henry III. is _De Cableicio_. The term _cableicium_, or _cablicium_ signifies windfallen trees, and corresponds to the old French word _chablis_, which had a like meaning. It is quite clear that the term “cablish” (to use the English form), strictly speaking, implies uprooted trees, as distinct from mere branches. The forest officials, after the great gale, were ordered to remove nothing, _nec de cableicio illo neque de branchura per impulsionem venti prostrata_. Nevertheless, the word was occasionally given a wider meaning—as, for instance, in 1223, when _cableicium_ was applied to twelve great branches that had fallen in Windsor forest. But in this case the wood was sufficiently substantial to be reserved for the repair of the king’s houses. Cablish seems never to have been applied to such windstrewn wood as would be used for fuel. We have met with the word in several forest rolls or records in Northamptonshire, Rutland, Hampshire, and Derbyshire as late as the time of Henry VII.; though at that period the English word _rotefallen_, or _rootefaler_, was more usual as descriptive of the tree uprooted by the wind, and was used in distinction to the mere _wyndfallen_ wood of smaller dimensions.

Other forests that occur in the Patent and Close Rolls of the earlier years of Henry III., which are not specifically named in the great storm order of 1222, are: Alnwick, Northumberland; Easingwold and Wakefield, Yorks; Clipston and Silverston, Northants; Acornbury and Kilpeck, Hereford; Peak Forest and Horston, Derbyshire; Alveston, Furches, Keynsham, and Horewood, Gloucester; Feckenham, Worcester; Cheddar and Selwood, Somerset; Freemantle, Hants; Buckholt, Clarendon, Ifwood, Sugrave, and Weybridge, Wilts; Poorstock, Dorset; Finmere and Woodstock, Oxon; and Havering, Essex.

Edward I. in some cases broke the Forest Charter under legal quibbles; but he did not, in general, desire that the boundaries of the forest as settled by his father, should be disturbed. Towards the end of his reign, however, strong political pressure induced him to consent to further disafforesting. The Forest Charter was confirmed in 1297, but further perambulations were undertaken between that date and 1301, by which large reductions were made in the forest area.

It would have caused general disturbance to the industries of the country, if the pursuit of special occupations pertaining to the soil had been prohibited within the very wide areas of the forests. Such industries were allowed to be followed under particular restrictions, and were worked, as a rule, for the profit of the crown. The most important of these was the question of iron smelting, particularly as the forges consumed so large an amount of wood or charcoal. Grants were made from the crown for permission to have itinerant forges. Such forges abounded in the Forest of Dean, and were also met with in the forests of Sussex, Duffield, Sherwood, Pickering, etc.

Henry III., in 1231, granted this liberty (_forgia itinerans_) to Mabel de Cantilupe for life in Dean Forest. The grant states this was in accordance with a custom sanctioned by John and other of the king’s royal ancestors. Another grant of the following year provided that the lady might have an oak on each of any fifteen days she chose, every year as long as she lived, for the support of this forge.

The symbol of a man who was entitled to use an itinerant forge seems to have been a pair of bellows. This symbol is to be found on two early incised slabs in the church of Papplewick, Sherwood Forest.

In some cases there were permanent forges of some size, belonging to the crown, within the forest bounds; of this there were two instances in Duffield Frith.

THE KING HUNTING (2) (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]

In the Belper ward of Duffield Frith there was considerable surface coal mining; on Dartmoor and Exmoor there were particular regulations affecting the procuring of peat; whilst in other forests the quarrying of stone for building purposes, for millstones and for tombstones, as well as the burning of lime and digging of marl were pursued, but in all cases with due regard for the non-disturbance of the deer. Such callings were confined to particular sites, as far as possible on the fringes of the forest.

The following of trades that were obviously detrimental to the deer, through odour or otherwise, such as the tanning of hides, were rigorously prohibited within forest bounds.

“Purlieu,” strictly speaking, was all that ground near any forest which had originally been forest by perambulation of Henry II., Richard I., or John, but had been severed by the Forest Charter of Henry III. Round some forests the purlieus were of considerable extent. As a rule, the purlieu man had certain forest agistment and other rights, but of considerable less value than the actual forest tenant; in return for this he was subject to a modified form of forest law, the chief of which was the non-disturbance of deer that he might find among his crops. The tenants on the outskirts of Galtres forest, Yorks, and of Duffield Frith, Derbyshire, were termed “bounderers”; they had certain privileges as well as obligations.

The purlieu custom varied much in different districts and passed under various local terms. Such were the _Wynlands_, or _Wydelands_, of the Peak, and the _Venville_ of Dartmoor. Cranborne Chase, which was nearly identical with a forest, had its well-defined _Inbounds_ and _Outbounds_. The old name of _Outwoods_ is not infrequently to be found in the vicinity of an old forest, as at Duffield, Clarendon, and Kinver; its use denotes that the place so called was formerly within the forest purlieus. The forest of Clarendon had its _Inlodges_ and _Outlodges_.